Our regular contributor Jim Gannon takes up the question raised lately of whether we are sleepwalking into a surveillance society.
After an interview with the Surveillance Camera Commissioner Tony Porter on January 27 on BBC Radio 4, the news media picked up on a number of his comments which included the fact that he believes the nation’s privacy is being increasingly invaded and many of the cameras are doing nothing to stop crime or keeping the public safe.
While Tony Porter did not say anything really that he has not said before on public platforms such as the Professional Security ST14 events at Manchester and Heathrow last year, his comments about the limitations of CCTV systems as an effective surveillance tool have been seized upon both by the press and the critics of CCTV’s use in public spaces. Quoting Richard Thomas a former Information Commissioner, who said Britain was in danger of sleepwalking into a surveillance state, added fuel to the debate about the increased use of both private and public surveillance cameras.
The fact is that Britain has one of the largest CCTV networks in the world and a number of our European partners are already posing questions why our Government allows it. Tony Porter who is responsible for overseeing over 100,000 publicly operated CCTV cameras has been quoted as saying that it is imperative that local authorities tell the public exactly how many cameras were watching their streets. However that 100,000 publicly operated cameras pale into insignificance when one adds the estimated six million private and domestic cameras allegedly operated across the UK which increases month on month as both the public and private industry seeks to protect their own interests.
Camera code principles
While Tony Porter was only applying the surveillance camera code principles to his observations and comments he has called for a public debate and greater regulation to ensure that cameras do not proliferate unnecessarily. He says that you can still maintain the balance of excellent surveillance but not have a propagation that is actually useless adding that run well it’s a useful tool for society. Unfortunately in the security industry we are only too aware of the numerous systems which are not properly managed and systems which could not be relied upon to produce images that could be used as evidence if called upon. Many critics will state CCTV does not deter or prevent crime; but the right systems in the right places operated and managed by the right people will definitely detect crime, identify anti social behaviour and keep people safe.
Ineffective systems
It is obvious from the significant amount of comment generated by Tony Porter’s radio interview that there are a wide range of views expressed about the merits or otherwise on the use of surveillance cameras throughout the UK. The increased use of body worn cameras, number plate recognition systems, drones, domestic and private business camera systems all add to the reason for such debate. Some local councils for instance have found that they are wasting thousands of pounds on ineffective cameras put up no doubt by someone who thought it was a good idea a few years ago, when CCTV was considered to be the catch-all solution for all security and anti-social behaviour (ASB) problems. After a review of its CCTV systems Dyfed-Powys Police which covers over half of Wales, is considering discontinuing full monitoring of its cameras after a review found a lack of evidence supporting they deterred crime or ASB. As local council budgets continue to come under scrutiny following forced cut backs on all spending, it goes without saying that security will be somewhere near to the top of the list. While the Surveillance Camera Commissioner says it would be short-sighted for local authorities to cut back on CCTV as part of an austerity drive the Local Government Association has been quoted as saying councils are not going to spend money on CCTV cameras unless they genuinely believe they will work.
Technology drives
Fixed camera installations are only one part of the equation with the spiralling use of body-worn cameras now in widespread use by the police, pub landlords, door supervisors, nightclub staff, housing and environmental health personnel, care workers, private security and even some supermarket staff aiming to capture anti-social behaviour on film as well as using it as a means of self-protection should such an occasion arise. Add to this the substantial increase in the sales of drone cameras it is easy to see why such technology can support law enforcement and ,protect certain members of society especially those vulnerable to compensation claims driven by the no win no fee compensation culture we now experience in Britain.
Motorists hit
The motorist does not escape lightly from surveillance with the Highway Authority purporting to operate some 1500 cameras on Motorways and major A roads in England assisting with traffic management as well as around 1100 automatic number plate recognition cameras (ANPR) monitoring an estimated 14 million vehicles in a single day. With over 20 types of cameras now in use monitoring both roads and motorists it is not too hard to grasp the real concept of who is watching who. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) check vehicles for which excise duty has not been paid and the Driver and Vehicles Standards Agency (DVSA) created in 2013 set up to improve road safety by setting standards for driving and motorcycling. The DVSA shares its information with the DVLA and operates a comprehensive network of mobile and static cameras to monitor whether goods vehicles have paid the HGV Road User levy. Sophisticated cameras on our roads gather data for a range of agencies including the police. They detect crime, manage traffic flow and detect road traffic offences as well as improve road safety. One of the end products however is an estimated £284m collected in speeding fines alone.
The end game
There are no doubt CCTV systems installed in locations across the country where they are as much use as a chocolate fireguard. Our Editor Mark Rowe summed up his view recently quite aptly by saying that some critics of CCTV are surely wanting it both ways. Either CCTV is so powerful that it is turning the country into a surveillance state or it’s not powerful enough because it’s not bringing results and is a waste of money. Whatever camp you are in it cannot be denied that there is a lot of it about and it does produce results for those who manage it properly and use it wisely.
